Political preferences (US & more)

If someone’s interested, here’s a quiz with a gazillion of candidates, if you ever wondered who would be your “perfect” candidate.

I got… Mark Cuban at 82%. Then some libertarian candidates, unknown to me. Highest scoring republicans were Ben Carson 76%, Rand Paul 76% and… Donald Trump 75%. Among democrats I got Andrew Yang 55% and Tulsi Gabbard 49%. Somehow Biden (29%) was dead last on my list, behind Sanders, Clinton.

1 Like

What the hell. The Rock as a president? I could live with that :slight_smile:

6 Likes

Not surprised with Bernie…but i didn’t expect Musk :grinning:

2 Likes

Omg AOC? :rofl: The Rock ok, Elon fine, but AOC? I guess I don’t really know you, man.

I’m a full on commie, it seems. Add sinophile to that.

1 Like

It looks like you’re for big government, centralization, interventionism, Keynesian exonomics & collectivism. This is the exact opposite of what I believe: small govt, decentralisation, Austrian economics & individualism.

Why do I like spending hours in front of my charts??? I shouldn’t…

Are you guys trolling me or what. I would believe that a FIRE community would not be very happy to let other people spend their money and organize their life for them, but I guess I was wrong, by the sample of 3 :flushed:

3 Likes

If it makes you feel better…

On the other hand, I am not too surprised. I would expect that people having a big interest in this thread have a big interest in how we should be governed, which usually tends towards wanting more government/regulation.

1 Like

Trump came in at bottom with 4%

MP forum: AOC for president! :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Just to put back into perspective : I think AOC would be socialist under an american perspective, but as European, she would be pretty much center left from the policies she proposes.

The word collectivism has nothing to do with the collectivation of industries in communist countries after second world war:

She even says she takes the UK, Finland and Sweden as a rolemodel.

The word collectivism should be more understood to strive as a whole society towards progress, rather than a society where the economy essentially favors the rich.

5 Likes

I don’t know who came up with that because Musk couldn’t even run for president in the US. Though I guess he could still run for congress.

That’s an extreme generalization/simplification. Wanting to support a safety net and a welfare based society is not in contradiction with FIRE. And it definitely doesn’t mean other people organizing their life for them. It’s also not socialism.

2 Likes

Biden proposes marginal tax rates of over 60%. How much money do you really need? The middle class always falls victim of these policies.

Why am I not surprised ? :joy: :joy: :joy:

As I understood it (and I could be wrong), his tax plan mostly impacts those who earn more than 400k. I doubt there’s a 60% marginal tax rate across the board for lower income earners.

Also, if someone earns more than 400k are they still middle class? That’s above the 98% percentile so I would guess no.

No income should be taxed 60%. It’s like: ok this guy is able to provide incredible added value with his work. Let’s tax the hell out of him, so that we demotivate his will to provide this added value.

:joy::rofl::crazy_face: so funny…

While some part of income does represent value added to society, not all does. For as much as I recognize the part top notch IT development plays in our society, is Facebook development adding more value to society than a farmer growing food in an extent that the income of the engineer doing it should be 10 times that of the farmer (disclaimer: I’ve not researched the numbers I’m using, it’s meant as a rough representation of the magnitude of the discrepency between income levels)?

Independently of that, the idea behind marginal tax rates is that there are thresolds in the rewards you get with your income. The next dollar may be taxed at 60% but the income before that one dollar was taxed at a lower rate so high earners still get to keep much more than 40% of their total gains.

I’m not in their shoes but does that feel that much of a high price to pay for social stability and decent infrastructures that high earners would feel like it’s a loosing deal for them (genuinely asking, that’s a kind of thinking I’m not able to vizualize properly)?

Edit: Reformulation for clarity.

1 Like

I think the test is flawed. The questions are very USA-centric, and the answer opportunities are limited (I didn’t feel a lot of the answers.) I also got AOC but don’t really like a lot of her stances. Who knows why :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

(My best guess is that I put “lower military spending” at quite high importance, and on the other hand I was on her camp on some questions I only put “meh” importance on.)

By reading and partipating to this forum, you confirm you have read and agree with the disclaimer presented on http://www.mustachianpost.com/
En lisant et participant à ce forum, vous confirmez avoir lu et être d'accord avec l'avis de dégagement de responsabilité présenté sur http://www.mustachianpost.com/fr/